From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Commitment of Speed

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Apr 24, 2014
NO. 09-13-00488-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 24, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 09-13-00488-CV

04-24-2014

IN RE COMMITMENT OF KEVIN ALLEN SPEED


On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-03-03280 CV


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit appellant Kevin Allen Speed as a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151 (West 2010 & Supp. 2013). A jury found that Speed is a sexually violent predator, and the trial court signed a final judgment and an order of civil commitment. In his sole appellate issue, Speed challenges the trial court's decision to permit a psychiatrist to evaluate him without his counsel present and the admission of testimony from that psychiatrist at trial. We affirm the trial court's judgment and order of civil commitment.

Speed argues that the post-petition interview by Dr. David Self without Speed's attorney present violated his right to counsel. Speed also contends that because the trial court permitted Self to examine Speed without Speed's attorney present, the trial court's subsequent admission of Self's testimony at trial over Speed's attorney's objection was erroneous. After Speed filed his initial brief, we decided In re Commitment of Smith, No. 09-13-00100-CV, 2014 WL 333374, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 23, 2014, pet. denied) (not yet released for publication). In Smith, we were presented with the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to have counsel present during his post-petition examination by a psychiatrist, and we concluded that "neither the SVP statute nor the Fourteenth Amendment require[s] that counsel be present during a psychiatrist's post-petition examination." Id. at *3.

For the same reasons explained in Smith, we conclude that Speed was not entitled to have counsel present during his post-petition examination by psychiatrist Dr. Self. See id. Because the evaluation by Dr. Self did not violate Speed's right to counsel, the trial court's admission of Self's testimony was likewise not erroneous. See generally id. We overrule Speed's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment and order of civil commitment.

AFFIRMED.

__________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

In re Commitment of Speed

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Apr 24, 2014
NO. 09-13-00488-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 24, 2014)
Case details for

In re Commitment of Speed

Case Details

Full title:IN RE COMMITMENT OF KEVIN ALLEN SPEED

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Apr 24, 2014

Citations

NO. 09-13-00488-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 24, 2014)

Citing Cases

In re Edwards

Additionally, we have upheld our Smith ruling in other cases. See In re Commitment of Speed, No.…

In re Commitment of Wirtz

Similarly, Wirtz, who was represented at the time of the examination, also fails to show how the absence of…